Comments on: Why John Edwards may be the best option for Democrats

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:37:51 +0000

DLS: Cull TMV’s archives. Like AZ, you’re deliciously unawares.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:24:48 +0000

Especially when it’s not mine. Truth too close for comfort once again, I guess…[sigh]

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:31:03 +0000

AZ: ‘Thanks, cosmoetica, for so eloquently illustrating my point about the politics of extremism. What Bush represents politically is quite mainstream, if one takes the time to read American history.’

Your second quoted sentence is what makes your own point, but then, if you recognized that, you would not have uttered sentence 2.

DLS: No one cannot say you don’t live your credo.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:29:39 +0000

Extremism and demonization preferred over history.

By: kritt

kritt — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:59:53 +0000

I would add to Don Q’s comment—if we believe that politicizing previously nonpartisan government agencies is a healthy trend for our democracy. One example of this is the Civil Rights Division’s decision to take on mostly reverse discrimination cases and prosecute voter fraud rather than vote suppression. Another occurred in our intelligence agencies.

Also we might find Bush mainstream if we believe that the Constitution should be reinterpreted by the president’s lawyers to mean whatever he’d like it to mean.

By: kritt

kritt — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:59:46 +0000

Also we might find Bush mainstream if we believe that the Constitution should be reinterpreted by the president’s lawyers to mean whatever he’d like it to mean.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:40:37 +0000

What Bush represents politically is quite mainstream, if one takes the time to read American history.

If we believe that torture, theft of land and natural resources and genocide are still mainstream values.

By: G. Hendricks

G. Hendricks — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:08:23 +0000

Well, Edwards just received the First Lady of Iowa’s endorsement, so that ought to a big boost for him. I must say that cosmo’s absolutely right. Edwards is the best candidate, with the clearest vision, and a political touch that could match that of Bill Clinton.

By: bob in fla

bob in fla — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:58:41 +0000

Like you, Michael, I lean towards Edwards, although I could support any of the Democratic candidates. I believe the rise of corporate power as the greatest threat the nation faces. Edwards has a successful track record in fighting them in the courts. His decision to go with public financing for his campaign tells me he favors public campaign finance as a method to reduce their influence. I also like his combative stance towards them, as opposed to compromising with them when they already hold too much power in government. I would like to see mmore focus on restoring the balamce of power among the 3 branches of government, as well as restoration of individual rights under the Constitution.

By: AZChas

AZChas — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:31:27 +0000

Thanks, cosmoetica, for so eloquently illustrating my point about the politics of extremism. What Bush represents politically is quite mainstream, if one takes the time to read American history. But rather than debate, we seem to prefer demonization these days, don’t we?

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:53:28 +0000

Interestingly, Obama has support among Republican voters, in Red states. See the following. It cannot all be written off to the GOP's offering a weak field (with the two best-known leaders both being RINOs from Northeastern states). It also is evidence that the 2006 elections (down with Bush, down with the war, down with the GOP, too) may indeed be repeated in 2008.

At Obama events in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia and Georgia, a good 20% of audiences routinely raise their hands when emcees ask for Republicans in the crowd.

Even some former Bush supporters and advisers are Obama converts. Three former major fund-raisers for the President have given money to Obama.

In fact, Obama's voting record is the most liberal of any candidate, according to a National Journal analysis. Obama's score of 84.3% in the Journal's ratings formula tops even that of Representative Dennis Kucinich, who was considered the most liberal Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:26:26 +0000

AZ: Your assessment of the political situation may have had truck pre-W, but to even suggest that the R’s have not been the fomenters of rabidity the last decade is to announce that Whitley Strieber was right, and there are aliens among us, and they do not speak Spanish.

By: AZChas

AZChas — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:43:21 +0000

..what does compromise mean other than selling out… [Republicans] continues to support a losing war in Iraq, wants to bomb Iran, supports the use of torture, rejects diplomacy and internationalism, advocates theocratic social policies, cares little for environmentalism and even less for the climate crisis, and so on and so on. This is the Republican system.

Quite an interesting perspective on a blog called the moderate voice.

I think this sort of “hyper-partisan” zealotry is why we can’t seem to solve the problems we have. It isn’t the “system” that sucks, but the extremists of left and right who only seem interested in vanquishing the other side. It’s the purest form of arrogance, this certainty that your politics is holy, the other side is evil.

Without compromise, democracy is just totalitarianism. That’s what an Edwards presidency promises? I sure hope not.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:19:01 +0000

Edwards could eventually become the VP candidate.

By: jammer

jammer — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:41:27 +0000

Food for thought indeed. I have liked Edwards for a long time and still do. His heart is in the right place and he has walked the walk in service to the downtrodden. My only reservation is that I have never seen America elect a president on a platform of helping the poor or excluding all corporate interest from the negotiating table. Like it or not corporations are here to stay. If I thought he could get elected on this platform I would support him but I fear his platform is a loser, and it is indeed imperative that we elect a Democrat in 2008 for the sake of the Supreme Court alone. But I will happily support whichever Dem wins the nomination.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:38:49 +0000

If one actually listens to the candidates, Edwards has, by far, the best grasp of American reality since he’s been stumping for literally 5 years.

Obama is my 2nd choice, but, as an earlier thread pointed out, being black means he simply cannot be as angry as Edwards, lest scare off soccer moms and dads.

Edwards is a lawyer (boo) who actually did the right thing in standing up against corps and for people. Had he not gotten rich, too, folks wd say he was an altruist- but how many public defenders ever make it in politics.

However, unless he wins in Iowa, he’s slated for a Secretary job in an O or C Admin.

If Hillary gets in (and it is she who is the system on the D side) then one can only hope a Bloomberg steps in.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:59:52 +0000

Edwards is the system. Why are so many fooled so easily? Is it the cutesy looks and the “sunny” smile? (Note that Edwards is now challenged by Obama on these important-to-Democratic-voters criteria.)